Shopkeeper's priviledge?

[Chewy65]

Has a crime been committed. Gun store refunds the deposit customer placed on a gun, less DROS fee. Store says it wants to give the owner an opportunity to decide if the DROS fee shall be refunded. [DROS was never started.] Buyer refuses. Manager says it the receipt is store property and must be returned. Buyer refuses and Manager then says it must be returned else buyer may attempt to obtain a refund of not just the DROS fee but the already refunded payment toward the gun. Buyer refuses.

Manager calls police. Manager then tells buyer he cannot leave the store and manager blocks exit from store.

Police arrive. Police first talk with manager. They then briefly interview buyer and tell buyer he is free to leave.

I am thinking of what is called shopkeeper's priviledge, but question its application here as the manager did not believe that merchandise had been taken or that there was even any attempt to take merchandise.

[CBR_rider]

Wait.. what? Sounds like a stupid gun store *insert shocked face* I don't know; other than I would be pissed to respond to such a stupid call. What did anyone want done once the police showed up?

[Samuelx]

IMO, the narrative isn't detailed or clear enough but it sounds like nothing serious or significant took place... I also didn't know that there was a term/phrase for CA PC 490.5(f)...

[I Swan]

Has a crime been committed. Gun store refunds the deposit customer placed on a gun, less DROS fee. Store says it wants to give the owner an opportunity to decide if the DROS fee shall be refunded. [DROS was never started.] Buyer refuses. Manager says it the receipt is store property and must be returned. Buyer refuses and Manager then says it must be returned else buyer may attempt to obtain a refund of not just the DROS fee but the already refunded payment toward the gun. Buyer refuses.

Manager calls police. Manager then tells buyer he cannot leave the store and manager blocks exit from store.

Police arrive. Police first talk with manager. They then briefly interview buyer and tell buyer he is free to leave.

I am thinking of what is called shopkeeper's priviledge, but question its application here as the manager did not believe that merchandise had been taken or that there was even any attempt to take merchandise.

The part that bothers me is the manager physically blocking the customer from leavingg that doesn't sound too good.

[Chewy65]

CBR-rider, The buyer doesn't know what the store wanted done. The buyer was pissed but simply explained what happened, didn't ask the police to do anything, and went home.

Samuelx, I think you are right about nothing serious taking place. Buyer was pretty worried about the manager's rather irrational behavior since buyer assumed that the manager was carrying. But buyer is a big boy who SORT OF didn't want to make a big deal out of legal rights or emotional distress. (Manager may have lucked out as buyer called the ADA the next day to talk about it. The two know each other. He was out and buyer decided to drop things.

[Prior to the officers arrival manager went out to his car in the parking lot and put something into or took something out of the trunk of his car. It may well have been his carry, but I left that out as we don't know that and it may not be relevant since nothing was brandished.

The manager probably had a LTC, but if not I suppose there is another violation since, if he was carrying, he was in the public part of the store]

I Swan, I also thought the blocking part looked not so good as in false imprisonment or some kind of unlawful detention/arrest.

[CBR_rider]

CBR-rider, The buyer doesn't know what the store wanted done. The buyer was pissed but simply explained what happened, didn't ask the police to do anything, and went home...

That works, Chewy. I didn't know exactly what "side" of the story you had heard so I was curious who actually wanted what (as far as we know). I'm not entirely sure if/how the store can keep DROS funds if the DROS was never started... I get they MAY be able to do so once started (I assume the state takes their portion no matter the outcome once a DROS is started) but if they hadn't got that far it seems kinda CS (because the store didn't actually spend anything other than their time; which I assume they were open for normal business hours anyway therefore it is probably a moot point). Was this a "big" store? I'm not sure how/why they are concerned about the customer/anyone else "fraudently" trying to use the receipt.. I assume if this has happened int he past they could A) mark the receipt (happens all the time in big box stores) or B) put a note by the register/manager's office/whatever with a photocopy of the receipt saying something like "already returned" or whatever. I get the second option is a bit harder, especially with a large store/number of transactions; but then we are back to why marking the receipt wasn't good enough.

I was curious if the customer wanted to press charges for false imprisonment or something based on shopkeeper's actions, and if so, what the LEO's said on scene.

It sounds like a giant waste of time to me because of a moron behind the counter. Whether that moron was only the employee involved or someone else forcing actions down the chain of command doesn't really matter; as you have relayed the story to us it sounds like an overreaction and poor business practices by the store.

[softscrubb]

The DROs are an administrative fee which is paid to the State when a firearm is purchased. If no DROs was processed, there is no reason the store should be able to keep the $25. Depending on how long the deposit had been put on a gun and the reason for the cancellation, the store could keep the $10 fee they charged. I think that might have been reasonable.

The receipt is not the store's property. I might see a case for not wanting the DROs receipt to leave since it has firearm specific items on it. Even then, you simply tell the guy if he wants the DROs canceled, he needs to turn over the DROs paperwork and he gets the $25. As for false imprisonment, it isn't a good idea to try to restrain or contain a customer who has not committed any crime. It would be more likely a civil issue than criminal. As for the manager openly carrying.. if the store has a policy allowing employees to open carry in the store, then they are allowed to.

[RickD427]

Has a crime been committed. Gun store refunds the deposit customer placed on a gun, less DROS fee. Store says it wants to give the owner an opportunity to decide if the DROS fee shall be refunded. [DROS was never started.] Buyer refuses. Manager says it the receipt is store property and must be returned. Buyer refuses and Manager then says it must be returned else buyer may attempt to obtain a refund of not just the DROS fee but the already refunded payment toward the gun. Buyer refuses.

Manager calls police. Manager then tells buyer he cannot leave the store and manager blocks exit from store.

Police arrive. Police first talk with manager. They then briefly interview buyer and tell buyer he is free to leave.

I am thinking of what is called shopkeeper's priviledge, but question its application here as the manager did not believe that merchandise had been taken or that there was even any attempt to take merchandise.

Chewy,

The "Shopkeeper's Privilege" is codified at Penal Code section 490.5. Like our laws regarding Private Person's Arrest, the statute gets a lot of abuse and there's quite few booking slips filled out on merchants who have unskillfully attempted to use it.

Here is the text:


The key here is that the merchant must meet the "Probable Cause" standard to believe that a person has taken "merchandise" from the location. The PC standard is a fairly high one to meet. Think about the "tag detectors" at the exit doors. If the detectors activate 10 times when customers walk through them, and 6 of them turn out to be shoplifters, then the alarm would provide "Probable Cause." But if only one shoplifter is discovered from the tem alarms, then the standard is not met. This is where most of the booking slips start from. Having a hunch that someone is stealing, or suspecting them of stealing, doesn't trigger the privilege. The PC standard must be met.

The second issue, unique to your question, is that privilege only applies to "merchandise" (and also to illegal movie recordings, but that's out of the context of your question). It does not extend to all forms of property. I doubt that a receipt would meet the definition of "merchandise."

Your hypothetical has all the makings of a dispute that should be resolved outside of the criminal justice system, but if the parties pressed for an arrest, I see the merchant being the one going to jail.

You gotta remember that when the law gives you a privilege, you gotta follow the rules that apply to the privilege.

[Chewy65]

Thanks all. The morning after, when buyer called the then assistant city attorney (I mistakenly called the ADA), he may have pushed to bring charges against the gun store manager - but since the guy was not in buyer let it drop. He just let the DROS money go.

Yeah, Rick. I couldn't imagine how anyone, much less a seasoned manager of a good sized gun store, could have a good faith believe that PC existed that merchandise was being stolen, when all that was in controversy was the receipt.

As you may know I do civil law but my recommendation was there was a case to be made but to let things drop and find another lgs to do business with.

[CinnamonBear723]

IMO, the narrative isn't detailed or clear enough but it sounds like nothing serious or significant took place... I also didn't know that there was a term/phrase for CA PC 490.5(f)...

There are very few people aware of that law. Even cops. I like it though. A business owner has the right to protect their business and property.

[CinnamonBear723]

Thanks all. The morning after, when buyer called the then assistant city attorney (I mistakenly called the ADA), he may have pushed to bring charges against the gun store manager - but since the guy was not in buyer let it drop. He just let the DROS money go.

Yeah, Rick. I couldn't imagine how anyone, much less a seasoned manager of a good sized gun store, could have a good faith believe that PC existed that merchandise was being stolen, when all that was in controversy was the receipt.

As you may know I do civil law but my recommendation was there was a case to be made but to let things drop and find another lgs to do business with.

Sound advice. Even from a civil attorney!